User talk:Tvccs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RockyMM (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 9 December 2006 (→‎Images on [Derek Sherinian] deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ari Hoenig

The article on Ari Hoenig was actually requested on the Wikipedia Musicians list needing bios. The mere fact you're not familiar with Hoenig doesn't mean he's a "garage band" for your rage. Get a life.

No it doesn't, other things do. There's extensive guidelines on what constitutes notability and even extended specific ones as they relate to music and musicians, Ari Hoening doesn't fit them as notable enough to sufficiently warrant their own article. Perhaps rather than trolling at me here are some things you might consider to sate the request for the article and obviously your own desire to create it.

  • I'm not sure what sort of music Ari does, but consider a section on them in the article for that genre.
  • If there's an article about the music scene of the area they play in, consider mentioning them in there.
  • If there is any festival or forum in which they have played which is notable enough to have it's own article, consider adding content about Ari Hoening to it.

My userpage states my position on this stuff, it doesn't mean that I don't believe Ari Hoening belongs on the Wikipedia, it means that I (and the administrator that accepted my nomination of it as a CSD agreed) have helped out keep the Wikipedia encyclopedic by flagging what I felt was an article about someone not notable enough to stand alone.

Thanks for dropping by.

Elomis 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Hoenig

Doing more research into it, it may not have qualified for speedy deletion but I'll stick by my original contention that he probably isn't notable enough to deserve his own article, unfortunatley (and I'll readily admit that this probably is undeserved and unfortunate) the fact that he is a jazz musician probably means that he misses out on a lot of the normal notability guidelines and tests (for example he probably hasn't had a notable hit on the music charts) but he certainly seems to have a reasonable following in (exclusively) the jazz world. Is it possible to put content about him in an article about a band or bands he has played with? As I mentioned in my first comments I don't and wouldn't content he doesn't deserve his place on Wikipedia but I will stand by the belief that he doesn't deserve his own unless his notability can be asserted properly, if you wanted to write an article exclusively about him have a look through the notability guidelines and see what is required to asset his remarkability properly. BTW, thanks for spamming my userpage, perhaps you could use that content in the article. Hopefully you can see how difficult it is to keep Wikipedia reasonably low on articles about musicians trying to get famous, and keep it to ones that are, and therefore the importance of asserting their notability from the outset.

Elomis 09:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Reply, Hopefully Final

I didn't spam your page...I simply posted one of the most extensive and world-ranging gig lists you'll see for ANY musician anywhere, as an FYI.

Based on your criteria, hundreds of jazz musicians would never "rate" a page on Wikipedia because they weren't famous enough to someone sitting in Australia who apparentl..

...a link before you flame my entry as unqualified - I'd never dream of doing that for something I new nothing about. It's unneccessary to rework every musicians career into an extended Wiki article right off the bat, but if others want to that know more...I thought that was the idea of this whole project.

I guess we've got to the very crux of it, I know next to nothing about jazz other than I know I liked Harry Connick Jr. when I saw him at the Opera House but it's not about how much I know about jazz, progressive metal, dressage or milkshakes; from the outset of an article it's not neccessary to work the article into an extended biography but it must assert sufficiant notability, perhaps you could consider editing an article in an external program ensuring that notability is asserted before submission, making sure that it meets the guidelines in here. Mentioning in the article that Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. as per those guidelines would certainly help.

I'm sorry if you feel upset that I nominated this and the administrator agreed, remember that the article was deleted because it didn't assert the notability, not necessarily because Ari isn't notable.

Elomis 09:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ari Hoenig

Thanks for the heads up - I will see what I can do. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it

The wiki process really does work, most of the time. Not always. But, if you ever have another situation where a legitimate article is being questioned, just drop me a message and I'll help out however I'm able. Friday (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Derek Sherinan Planet X 2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Derek Sherinan Planet X 2.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PlanetXPromo-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PlanetXPromo-1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:TheNiceElegy-400-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheNiceElegy-400-1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:TheNiceVivacitas-250-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheNiceVivacitas-250-1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ResurgamII 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

The Original Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for recent tireless work, especially on Derek Sherinian, Planet X, and numerous other music related articles!!! RockyMM 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a barnstar!! :) Something else, when I first started editing Derek's page, I had big plans for it (I wanted to include as much info from his site, considering education, early years and more as possible), but no time or clear vision how to do it. Derek's article as it is now by far surpasses what all my plans were for that article. Keep up the good work! --RockyMM 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block...?

I just deleted the article, not protect it. You should be good to go to recreate it under the original title. I figured that the entry was either an experiment or technical glitch. Thanks for asking.  :) - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America

We seem to be putting together a reasonable consensus on this ! Re Paul Welborne and a couple of other changes I made to the AMC personnel list, I have just copied what is on the record sleeve and know no more. Now I've found the AMC vinyl, I've discovered my old turntable doesn't work properly, and a CD seems to be unobtainable ... Let me know if I can be of any more help re the Rock Machine sampler. Ghmyrtle 09:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed Joe Byrd to Joseph Byrd. I don't know anything about Lyrwiki - never looked at it - but will see if I can find the time. Thanks Ghmyrtle 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


AOL blocking

Are you still blocked? Unfortunately there was no way I could know when I blocked that user that he was on AOL. AOL has always had serious problems with people getting blocked as part of anti-vandal blocks, and some days are worse than others. Academic Challenger 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RE:Joseph Byrd

Hi! I don't see the problem with the Joseph Byrd infobox, maybe it was just a temporary problem or just the browser you were using? It looks good to me. Good job on that page by the way :) Andrzejbanas 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock...AOL User...thank you

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by (aeropagitica) for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "YJ2kool". The reason given for YJ2kool's block is: "vandalism.". Your IP address is 64.12.117.10. Tvccs 05:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YJ2kool has now been unblocked. (aeropagitica) 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


MagicKirin Block

Hello, My block was done without any discussion from Jaranda who is abusing his position. Can you unblock? Thans 152.163.100.195 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)MagicKirin152.163.100.195 21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response on McGovern Article

1) If you are going to talk to me, please do so in a civil tone. 2) Please do not think of yourself as more intelligent then me because of an age difference. 3) Please read WP:OWN with regard to who is allowed to contribute to which articles. 4) "Dirty tricks" is a POV word and "illegal tactics" gives off the exact same meaning without the implied point-of-view and that is why it was changed. I hope you can give me the same respect I am giving you right now, I could have easily responded in kind but I won't. Good day.--Jersey Devil 04:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statements above were made civilly...it's incredibly annoying (and I could have said far more) to have people editing articles on which they have no direct knowledge - the Wikipedia article on dirty tricks specifically details the Watergate/Nixon era of said, and my age comments were directed at the fact that nearly any American alive in that period would associcate dirty tricks and Nixon. It was a mistake to make the revisions you did as the original phrasing was far more historically accurate phrase, as is supported by the article on dirty tricks and dozens of historical accounts of that period. You are certainly free to contribute to articles, and its obvious in reviewing your contributions (as I did before I left my original comments) you have made many substantial contributions. More power to you, but don't sanitize historical fact, as you did in this case - dirty tricks is NOT a POV, and in that case you are completely wrong. And as an FYI, I write for a major newspaper group you likely read. Thank you. Tvccs 04:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The following entry is from the Wikipedia article dirty tricks. Watergate era dirty tricks

For a full history see: Watergate

The Nixon Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), a private non-governmental campaign entity, used funds from its coffers to pay for, and later cover up, "dirty tricks' performed against opponents by Nixon's employee, Donald Segretti. Nixon's use of the FBI to investigate, slander and abuse opponents goes beyond simple pranks or dirty tricks into the realm of government initiated crime.

As a result of post-Watergate reform legislation, such activities are strictly regulated, though other private entities still may practice what has become commonly referred to as questionable or unethical dirty tricks.

Recent nomenclature equates a Dirty Tricks Squad to any organized, covert attempt to besmirch the credibility or reputation of a candidate, individual or organization so as to render them ineffective.

For you to claim dirty tricks is a POV, then you should suggest the entire article should be removed, and any Wikipedia editor can do so. However, there isn't one chance in a hundred it would be, as dirty tricks is NOT a POV, as I stated earlier. Tvccs 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jersey_Devil"

This is somewhat odd, since I have absolutely no dog in this fight at all, but since you wrote something on my talk page, I'm going to respond.
You are certainly entitled to believe that people should only edit articles on subjects with which they have direct experience. You should understand, however, that such an idea is directly contradicted by official policy. Know that the policy you're advocating could easily be turned against you; I'd doubt you'd like it if some right-wing Nixon apologist started reverting your edits with comments like "I have a Ph.D. in History from Harvard, so I'm more qualified than you are to edit this article." --Descendall 05:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent comment, and it's obviously not possible to have direct knowledge of all subjects - there is a huge need, and it's a major weakeness of Wikipedia editing, for editors to have a substantial knowledge level of whatever they edit, politically or otherwise, as I have advocated since joining Wikipedia. I have no political POV on the suitability of inclusion material, rather its accuracy and sourcing...I added the following to User_talk:Jersey_Devil...

Let me offer the following as well...there is a so-called "sourced" quote in that article about McGovern and 20 million people leaving the Democratic party. The source for the quote isn't original, however, I traced the source back to a columnist for the National Review, who I found an e-mail address for, and who I sent an e-mail asking for the source of said quote - he responded it had been said by McGovern in a 1993 PBS program he helped produce - no transcript or tape of said program is available, and I could remove the quote if I wanted to be a jerk, but the reply of the original source is sufficient for me - I actually did the legwork and the research, as I would as a reporter or producer. Tvccs 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of anything here that isn't very well documented on a historical basis, and I take the time and effort to do the actual research. Please don't make this a degree-oriented etc. qualification issue, as it isn't - it's a matter of research and knowledge, as well as not sanitizing history and claiming something like dirty tricks is a POV when it flat out is NOT. That's my dog, per se, and I think any and all Wikipedia editors need to research before they make edits, regardless of whether they agree with whatever might be said. There are certainly tons of things I don't "like" on here, but I don't remove/edit anything unless I am well-researched, multiple sourced, and as certain as I can reasonably be as to what I edit, and I very rarely touch other's material unless I am as certain as I can reasonably be it's factually incorrect. Others can certainly pursue editing as they see fit, I'm just following the credos required by major media organizations that care about accuracy first. I have actually found publishing material on here, in following that philosohy, helps improve my editing/fact checking, which is a good thing. Again, thanks for your comments. Tvccs 06:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Nazamo (moved from User page)

Hi, sorry to plunk this down here, I can't find a "add talk here" place (perhaps I missed it). I saw your site, and I appreciated a lot of your points, about learning about a topic before you edit a page. Here are some friendly responses to your message....
Thanks for your comments.
Your changes are generally a mess--Just trying to do good-faith copyediting to improve flow, and downgrade strong claims to a more defensible position (e.g. I proposed changing Jaco from the "most celebrated bassist" (or similar phrase), which may be hard to prove, because many bassists have been "celebrated" in bass magazines to "innovative")
I think it's a reasonable forward to claim that Jaco Pastorius and Stanley Clarke were likely the two most influential bassists with fusion ties to the 70's. That commentary was here before I arrived, and I believe it's generally accepted within the fusion community from all that I've read over the past 20-30 years. I'm a former record buyer with a major chain and know many of these people personally as well...have 10,000 recordings, have written liner notes, have music blogs, etc etc etc. God forbid we have anything "OR"...In regards to the layout issues, you have to look at the images on a page and adjust those as well if you're going to mess with copy, not just edit copy and leave a page looking like hell with edits - I don't touch pages unless I'm prepared to edit not only the copy, but the layout as well, and I've had to learn various tricks to make that easier. I might prefer a shorter lead as well, but the prior lead, with the Miles Bitches Brew cover, looked like hell from a layout standpoint, and I didn't want to move the Miles cover just because of my own preferences as it belonged there according to others. Another editor took my original section on virtuosity and time signatures and moved it up into the lead, which I thought was a good move (see the page discussion). I thought it was a good thing to add the Tony Williams Lifetime cover art, which helped balance the layout, and it means the lead is longer than usual. It's a matter of balancing layout and content, and I thought it was the best option at the time. Leaving huge gaps in displayed pages looks terrible, and as I've reviewed pages cited by Wikipedia as excellent I've found layout is an important issue, as it should be. I should also add that I'm reluctant to delete or edit the work of others much except for very minor grammatical cleanup and obvious fact errors or omissions, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I'm not the god's gospel on this, and I know people, like the guys that run Audiophile Imports, that can run circles around me. I'd rather add and build than chop and diminish.
and there was no POV in the article as it existed, I argue that statements like "In addition to Davis, the most important figures in early fusion were.." could have some POV. I argue that the POV exists in the phrase "the most important". If it was softened to "other important", sure, that's defensible. But to say a list of 6 or 7 are "the most important," I believe you'd need an expert source saying this.
Again, there are plenty of "expert sources" that have agreed on this for years to the point of common knowledge - there are not a lot of definitive fusion bibles out there, actually none. There are articles referenced at the bottom of the page that do generally support those contentions, however.
and you made no specific references to where you saw a POV. Sorry, should have been more specific in edit summary
You also butchered the layout,I didn't believe that the radio airplay para was needed in the Lede...but if you call that "butchering", OK.
See above commentary about balancing layout and copy - One of the things I have consistently found since I was a record buyer in the 1970's, and have seen and heard dozens of times since, is people asking why they never hear this music on the radio, in the U.S., whereas Scott Henderson and other people have talked about a much wider acceptance overseas.
better spent researching and linking/bookmarking...I agree with this point...I have started some articles, and there are some editors who just keep cutting and deleting, and I feel like you...If you feel so strongly that X content is unsourced or whatever, why not improve it, and don't just cut it out. For the record, I don't think I actually ERASED content, I just tried to copyedit and downgrade claims.
I'm glad you sense the same, and I try to stay away from deleting "unsourced" material I know is reasonable when there are no traditional sources, which is most of the time in what I write about. And yes, there was siginificant content that was deleted in the form of edits.
deletions you made on Soft Machine...references to bands being leaders of scenes are commonly made in music pages...However, I believe these claims, since they are subjective, need to be backed up by a quote from an expert (music critic/music historian). Your point that Soft Machine are the leaders may be fine...but many Wiki editors claim that XXX singer is the leader of YYY scene, or ZZZ band is the leader of the QQQQ scene, without references.
Read the Canterbury scene Wiki page, the Soft Machine page, there are books on Canterbury, many other references, it's generally, not universally (there are a few Caravan and National Health junkies for example), accepted that Soft Machine was the lead band from the Canterbury scene, and that has been the case for 30-plus years, and they have the record sales to support it, having outsold anyone else Canterbury-related with the exception of Pink Floyd by a wide margin. I already referenced the Hugh Hopper interview in my prior comments. In this case we aren't talking about today's bands, per se, this is established and discussed ad nauseum history.
It's also not appropriate to move the radio section down to the 1990's and 2000's section you renamed, it's not related. Sorry, probably not a good place, but I didn't believe the lede was a good place.
See above.
And the majority of other edits, no matter how well-intentioned, create havoc with the prior article, and reflect your own POV.Just trying to improve the article.
Again, your improvements need to be balanced against the contributions of dozens of others, especially when you start chopping up copy. I try and respect the time and effort of others, regardless of whether I totally agree with what they've said, or exactly how they said it.
you are the only contributor to that article in the last however many months that feels that fusion was "well-represented in the 1980's - nearly everyone else has concurred otherwise.Maybe it is a problem of definition of fusion, but the facts indicate that there are Grammy Awards for Jazz Fusion throughout the 1980s....Grammy Awards of 1989: Yellowjackets for Politics Grammy Awards of 1988: Pat Metheny Group for Still Life (Talking) Grammy Awards of 1987: Bob James & David Sanborn for Double Vision Grammy Awards of 1986: David Sanborn for Straight To The Heart Grammy Awards of 1985: Pat Metheny Group for First Circle Grammy Awards of 1984: Pat Metheny Group for Travels Grammy Awards of 1983: Pat Metheny for Offramp Grammy Awards of 1980: Weather Report for 8:30...plus other albums from the 1980s, such as Weather Report (self-titled album) summer of 1981, Yellowjackets Yellowjackets 1981. Yellowjackets Mirage A Trois 1983, Yellowjackets Samurai Samba 1985, Yellowjackets Shades 1986, Yellowjackets Four Corners 1987, Yellowjackets Politics 1988. Yellowjackets The Spin 1989, plus Chick Corea Elektric Band...
The above list generally speaks to the exact issue of the submergence of fusion into the smooth jazz genre and the resulting confusion about fusion (ha-ha). I actually added something to the smooth jazz page on this. By this time Weather Report was a Birdland-driven whatever that was a shell of its original improvisational monster, the Metheny albums cited are from his smoothest phase (and from which many commercial themes were taken - I heard one for Publix Supermakets to the point of near insanity), David Sanborn and Bob James are well-known as smoothers, as is Yellowjackets. The music the Grammys awarded has little or none of the experimentation/improvisation fusion was best known for and is far more littered with the safe and catchy hooks, etc. of smooth jazz, which is why the section on confusion, etc. is appropriately included in the article. If you looked at the smooth jazz station playlists of the time such as the pioneering WLOQ-FM in Winter Park, Florida, the albums you cited above would be all over their air, whereas they wouldn't have touched Allan Holdsworth with a ten foot pole.
You also removed the section on virtuosity, which is also your POV - you have to be a virtuoso to play most of that music, and very few musicians can at the highest levels, or play and improvise in those meters, etc. I would argue that all top professional instrumental musicians with solo careers in genres ranging from bebop, classical, or bluegrass are probably virtuosos on their instruments. If you claim that fusion musicians have an exceptional level of virtuosity, beyond say a top bebop player or classical soloist, then please add in an expert source (musicologist/music critic) to support this.Nazamo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Classical musicians have a high level of technical virtuosity, but rarely improvise at anything near the level of the best fusion players, or play in odd meters with rare exceptions, and the improvisation that does exist, no matter how beautiful, is generally limited by the form with some rare exceptions. Be-Bop players and especially some avant-garde players obviously improvise, but again, you rarely hear the complexity of odd meters and changes combined with that improvisation (I'd point to maybe the Art Ensemble of Chicago as the best exception), as opposed to a band like Planet X, for example, that may make dozens of meter changes in a single song, or something like Don Ellis playing in a 19/8 that almost no one can play period. Bluegrass players rarely mess much with meters as well with some exceptions, and I wish like mad bands like Union Station would use their gifts of improvisation more as the virtuosity and ability is obviously there - but again, I don't hear bluegrass recordings where you hear the aspects of fusion where you have extended track lengths and soloing combined with mutiple meter changes, odd meters and virtuosity. If you know of any, please point them my way - I was, for example, disappointed in the recent Union Station live DVD which featured great playing all over, but almost nothing that varied much from what had been recorded and released in the studio, even when the songs seemed to scream out for improvisation live. I should also add/clarify that much of my thoughts on virtuosity is aimed at the rock genre, where people like Bruce Hornsby have made a point of talking about how rare a real concentration on virtuosity is in the latest generation of musicians. I have made an adjustment to the virtuosity section, and will edit it further in order to clarify/improve it. Again, thanks for your comments, and I hope you find mine useful as well. Tvccs 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your well-thought-out comments and ideas. Now I understand the term "butchered" as you used it. I must admit (shamefully) that I don't know about how to organize spacing/pictures on the Wikipedia page yet : ( .... I will learn how to do this, because I agree with you - the appearance and layout of images and text is important. Perhaps the jazz fusion article could have a paragraph describing the differences between hard-hitting 1970s fusion (monster improvisation, mixed meters, 20 minute songs, etc) and soft 1980s radio-friendly "smooth jazz" fusion. I looked again at the edits and realized that I did remove some content. I agree with you that removing content should be done with caution. However, not speaking about the jazz fusion article, but generally about arts/music articles, in some cases, there is a bloat factor, with lots of rumours and detailed stories interpolated into the article. I have trimmed this type of content from articles on David Bowie, Rick Wakeman, Robert Smith, and the Cult. Nazamo 13:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've copied your note on my talk page to here, so I can refer to it... Once again...let's leave the comments here from both and I will check back - Although your extensive changes on jazz fusion again are well-intended, I'm sure, they are again filled with deletions that didn't need to be made, and in many cases the copy again makes no sense - Genuine fusion carries on is not a POV - it's a direct statement redressing this issue of smooth jazz and confusion as a result, and the copy edits you made once again butcher that very needed perspective. I haven't had time yet to read all that you did - have you ever heard "Lotus" from Santana? Your rewrite of that section does him an injustice, and the section on Lotus not being released in the U.S. for twenty years was very relevant. I will add more later. Tvccs 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)...Unless I missed it, I don't believe that I cut any of the Lotus/Carlos Santana content. I added more coverage of his band Santana as a group with fusion influences, and more about McLaughlin. The recent edits have new content added to the article.

On a limited further review...I see many more problems...much like the first time. I've looked at your user contributions - can you plase point me to something you've largely created rather than edited? I see a lot of editing, and I see others have complained about your hacking up articles as well. Tvccs 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)''As far as wikipedia editing styles, editing/copyediting/"be bold" revisions, etc are a legitimate Wikipedian approach, even if that's all a person ever does. I imagine there are a variety of editing styles, with some people focusing on spell checking, others doing wikilinking, etc. But since starting of articles appears to be important to you, I have started some new articles (organ trio, various musicians). Please note my respectful tone. You continue to use the potentially inflammatory term "butcher". Regarding the new proposed headings, the goal is to have the history unfold in chronological chunks (roots of fusion, then 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s)........The "genuine" fusion carries on heading advocates "a" point of view on the history of fusion. This comment is not to you in person, but to wikipedia editors in general who do their own historical analysis on music in articles (e.g., band X introduced the YYY style, and were the leading disseminators of this trend throughout the ZZZ scene in the US and Europe). Making statements like this, that analyze broad trends in music history is a task that should be left to professional music critics and music historians, and then Wikipedia editors should use the comments of the most authoritative critics and historians to describe a musical period's history. Wikipedia editors themselves should not, according to the Original Research rules, be doing their own original analysis of history. The "genuine fusion carries on" statement perhaps would need a few sources (music historians). Regarding the criticisms of my editing on my talk page, it is a bit misleading. I have edited 100s of articles in the "be bold" editing style (which Wikipedia policy pages themselves suggest), and there are just a few criticisms (jazz fusion, Children of Men, skinheads, and some others). Please note that I have tried, in response to your earlier letters, to not mess up the layout (pictures/empty spaces), and I have tried to add, not just cut.Nazamo 15:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to add some comments. I respect your broad-ranging knowledge and experience regarding music and jazz, and I have learned from both your music-related comments and your Wikipedia suggestions (on layout, approach). I appreciated and learned from your lengthy earlier letter. I would like to work cooperatively to improve the jazz fusion article, not have an argument. Perhaps for starters, I should realize that the "be bold" editing style, which seems not to create waves in the 100s of other articles I use it in, is not appropriate for the Jazz Fusion article (the "be bold" approach, IMHO, works best on a page where 100s of editors are all just adding in content, with few editors overseeing or organizing the content...as in some rock bands or actors). In the future, I will discuss all substantial proposed changes in the Discussion page of the Jazz Fusion article, and c.c. your talk page. In particular, the removal of the "Genuine fusion carries on" heading should have been discussed on the talk page. P.S... other articles I started: "Canadian blues", various jazz/blues musicians, professors.Nazamo 16:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, here are some articles I have started: organists Ena Baga and Jesse Crawford, Organ trio, Superstar (celebrity) (there was a small article initially, but I added to it), Canadian blues, Laurent Tailhade, Joel Black, Carla Peterson, Alberto Manguel (added new content), David Currie (conductor), Ottawa Symphony Orchestra, Scott Bukatman, David Gogo, List of Hammond organ players (adding summaries of each organists' activities...only partly done). Articles I have contributed content or ideas to: Punk blues, Shed (as in garden shed), Public address, Bass instrument amplification, Instrument amplifier, secret passage, Sigue Sigue Sputnik, Mickey Rourke, Gothic rock, Toasting (Jamaican version), Hammond organ, lots of contributions/edits to B-movie and Jazz.Nazamo 14:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy12

You might want to look at Mattisse's contributions today as well. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags from articles is vandalism

See [1]

There is a difference between citations and references. Please learn. WP:V requires that you use WP:CITE. Please read and absorb. If you continue your present course of behavior, despite with what clique of friend you agree, you will be reported for vandalism. Your personal views do not count. It is Wikipedia policies that matter. It is not a question of voting along with friends for a particlar point of view you all like or want. Follow the rules. I have friends too. And we will not let you continue to bully the Wikipedia population into compliance with your whims. Stop pressuring and threatening people. It isn't nice behavior. Nobody owns the articles. You may not like that (you and your friends act as if you do) but it is true.

Jst read the Wikipedian rules and follow them, despite what you want. Timmy12 05:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated originally, there are sources galore at the bottom of the article you apparently have no interest in reading. As far as "friends" go, I have no desire to get into the silly whatever wars you and your "pals" are engaged in, and I'm not a "friend" of either side - your reputation proceeds you, etc. etc. And tags are removed from articles all the time if they are inappropriate, or if an article in fact meets whatever the criteria might be, and it's not vandalism. 99.9% of the articles in Wikipedia are not footnoted at an ideal encyclopedic level, nice as that might be. It doesn't mean, at least in this case, there's a POV involved. As I said earlier, get a life. Tvccs 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timmy12"

Kelly Sweet

Thanks for sharing. You might want to review the CSD criteria, and see if there was anything in the article which claimed notability. It is not incumbent on an admin to be forced to clean up substubs which make no claims of notability. As I explained to Friday, if the article was rewritten to make notability claims, then there was no problem. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment

Thank you for the compliment on the Mike Synar article; he used to be my Congressman. Take care. ProfessorPaul 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags from articles is vandalism

Oh reeally? Why isn't that equally true for your friend User:Ekajati then? Double standard, I trust. Doesn't help your credibility to tell me one thing and support the same behavior in your friend. I guess you take the position most suitable to your meeds at the time, (situational ethics) or else User:Ekajati has a chain through your nose. Think for yoorself, man! Timmy12 03:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, AOL user needs unblocking

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 64.12.117.9 lifted.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  14:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrice again, AOL user needs unblocking

Thrice again -

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 64.12.116.13 lifted. Sorry for the trouble!

Request handled by: Luna Santin 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

This page explains what you have to do to use material by permission. Alternatively, you could ask the owner of the site to release the information into the public domain or under the GFDL. You can also, if you wish, create orginal content and cite the page as a source.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficient. Sorry, but anybody can fake an email on a wiki page. Also, the permission needs to specifically state that the content is released under the GFDL. The instructions are provided on the template. I've converted to to a copyvio to give you time instead of outright deleting it. -- JLaTondre 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you faked it. If I had, I would have just deleted it. However, copyright is a serious issue and Wikipedia needs a legal right to distribute the content. Copying an email to a wiki page doesn't do it. The sender could deny having sent it and Wikipedia would have no proof to refute that claim. Also, that email is insufficient as it doesnt state the material is released under the GFDL. Please read the instructions provided on the template. I've given you time vs. deleting it. It's up to you to take advantage of it. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on my talk page. -- JLaTondre 01:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on my talk page again. -- JLaTondre 01:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And again... -- JLaTondre 02:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And again... -- JLaTondre 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL user, please unblock...again

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 64.12.116.74 lifted. See also Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. Thanks.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  07:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I was just unblocked two minutes ago...sheesh...AOL user

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock lifted. My, the vandals are active tonight. =\

Request handled by: Luna Santin 07:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're welcome to it. :) Happy editing. Luna Santin 07:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: One for you to look at...any input appreciated

Ahh, unfortunately I haven't gone through the whole process, but I'm a little familiar with it. From the general copyrights page, we can find Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, and of particular interest this section. Hopefully once you're that far the OTRS people (who respond to those mails) can at least help you figure out what's left to be done. Afraid that's about all I know about it; you could post to the help desk to get a wider audience, if you like. :) Luna Santin 07:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL unblock request number three of the night

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 64.12.116.70 lifted.

Request handled by: JLaTondre 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue with AOL User - please unblock

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 64.12.116.195 lifted.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Editor Review

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my edits. If you have the time could you possibly leave a review or comment on Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Mattisse/Timmy12

Hello. Just letting you know that an RfC has been opened on Mattisse, here. As it provides strong circumstantial evidence that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet of Mattisse intentionally using two computers to evade checkuser, I thought you might want to comment. I don't really care what side you weigh in on, but I know you've been in a position to observe at least part of the situation and any view would be helpful. —Hanuman Das 10:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: YouTube and the DMCA

Wikipedia's policies have always been more on the side of caution then the law requires. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, it reduces the chance of a frivolous lawsuit even-more. Secondly, it is bad for the reputation of the project if we simply wait for a C&D order before we remove material/links. Thirdly, if Wikipedia ever does end up in a lawsuit over copyright infringement it is helpful to be able to show that we make an active effort to remove infringing material as we become aware of it. In the end this is equally about the law and the philosophy of the project. ---J.S (t|c) 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree. I'm still waiting for someone to show me link deletions that were incorrect. I'm tired of being lectured on principles without any substance offered. Deletion = bad. Which deletions please? --Spartaz 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Please don't take my actions personally. Wikipedia policy is that a fair-use image can not be used if it can be replaced with a free image even if a free image does not currently exist. This is a controversial policy, and whoever implements it is going to be roundly attacked, but that doesn't mean this is some private whim of mine. I will be happy to discuss this with you further; I hope, however, that you not take the lead of some other editors who have messaged me and descend into discourtesy. Do keep in mind that even though you may disagree with my actions, I am undertaking them with the intent of improving Wikipedia. Looking forward to hearing back from you. —Chowbok ☠ 05:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Forgive me if you already know this, but it seemed from your edits that you were unsure of how to link to an image without making it inline. To do this, prefix it with a colon, like so: [[:Image:Image name.ext]]. —Chowbok ☠ 05:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We will have to continue to disagree, as I strongly believe I am correctly implementing a policy that has been instituted by the Wikimedia Foundation. As you're interested in this, I would urge you to visit the links I've put at the bottom of User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation, and participate in the discussions there. Also, I must strongly object to your comment that I am an editor that is "more concerned with removing legitimate content than doing something that is actually constructive"—first, because I don't view this to be "legitimate" content, and working to remove it is therefore "constructive"; but even granting your premise that this is somehow an incorrect use of my time, I would point you to my userpage, which shows just how much work I have done that involves adding content. —Chowbok ☠ 06:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:ChadWackermanYamaha-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ChadWackermanYamaha-1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChadWackermanYamaha-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ChadWackermanYamaha-1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:TrilokGurtu-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TrilokGurtu-2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More..

Other images in the same situation include:

As a rule of thumb, avoid uploading unfree images of living, free, healthy people to illustrate biographies. Although they are (mostly) completly legal to use, they're against Wikipedia's long term goal (and against it's policy), that is to increase the availability of free (as in Freedom, and not as in "for free") content in the world. Best regards, --Abu Badali 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good

I just came across your user page and found the points you present there about Wikipedia to be well written, thoughtful, and valid. Good job. Badagnani 06:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected for Targeting

I, too, was selected for targeting by our pal Abu Badali. Several harassing edits to articles that had no connection to the current fair use imbroglio. (One of which was reverted by an admin, with a rebuke). I think it's important stand up to this kind of abuse. Please keep me posted; I would certainly offer my own experience if a RfC develops. Jenolen 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadillac Catera image

Looking at this image, I cannot find:

  • the source from whence you obtained this image
  • any evidence of any "permission" granted to use the image

The text of the {{promotional}} tag, which you yourself added to this image states:

The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion.

and

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

Until you comply with these requirements, your lack of legs to stand on is notable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original image was issued freely as a promotional image by General Motors in conjunction with the launch of the Cadillac Catera - it was obtained from the CateraOwners Web site with permission, as the source without a link to the image, the link to the site was on the page. Thank you for at least having the courtesy not to immediately mark the image as a CSD. I'll add information to the image page to clarify. Tvccs 12:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for being stupid enough to assume any courtesy - I see the image was simply removed.Tvccs
This is intended to elicit my support, is it? By whom was the image removed? —Phil | Talk 12:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Greetings. I left a note for you at Image talk:Marsalis9oval2.jpg. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Emerson photo

I believe the removal of the Wikimedia Emerson image was done by User:Abu badali, one of the most vigorous of the image deleters. Badagnani 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page history shows exactly that, and there is now an Rfc, not begun by me, on same.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali

Re: Catera & Ziggy, etc.

The image in question was widely circulated by General Motors in conjuction with the Catera launch campaign - CateraOwners is simply the source. It was a promotional image, and the Catera advertising launch campaign is one of note for its largesse, etc. That was the reason for the image supporting the copy and link. What would have to be done to make it sufficient?

And more importantly, have you reviewed the dozens of images I've added and now marked for CSD including CD covers and images I spent hours obtaining and modifying directly from musicians for use on here? Do they meet the standard you set? I began adding images to pages, with considerable care, I thought, to be certain I was using either original images or those from press kits or clear promotional sources - There is a section on using publicity photos that says they should usually not be an issue, etc. I followed the examples on pages I was editing copy for that used images already, as well as trying to read and understand the various fair use criteria offered. I have not added images to any number of pages I've wished to because I couldn't find a clearly free promotional image, and in some cases I have spent considerable time and effort to obtain images directly from the artist. I will look for your comments - thank you. Tvccs 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the source, you need to clearly state where the image came from. It doesn't necessarily need to be an online source. If it's a promotional image, then you can give some information about the press release, press pack or advertising material that it came from, such as the date of issue and information about the author and copyright holder.
In terms of providing a fair use rationale, there is some explanation at Help:Image page#Fair use rationale. Basically, for each use of the image (for each article it is used in), you need to provide a rationale explaining why you think that use is fair use. To get you started, see Wikipedia:Fair use, and the article fair use, which has a good description of the four main factors in determining fair use.
I don't know what other images you are referring to, although glancing at your talk page I suspect it is the same problem with all of them, namely lack of source information and lack of a fair use rationale. --bainer (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply - I'm glad to see you're willing to consider images from press releases are valid for use on Wikipedia - a few Wikipedians have taken the position that any press release photograph, totalling certainly in the thousands, of any living person should be deleted, and I have images under attack for dozens of persons now marked for CSD by one user who advocates a policy of total deletion. See Image:JayLeonhart-1.jpg as one of many examples. Nearly every other image listed on my user talk page is identical - the Cindy/Ziggy image was actually mostly unique in not having a specific clear and original source, and the promotional or promophoto fair use tag has been applied to all of them, many of which were also provided directly by the artist in question. I had already read the Fair use page(s) you suggested at some length, and have seen hundreds of images now under attack of any living person where the image is not a GFDL licenses image under the premise it could somehow be easily replaced - the only criteria for this approach is whether or not the person is still living. As far as the Cindy Ziggy image, I stated that GM was the original source, but the original press release materials sent out in 1996 featuring this ad campaign were never published online (and I am a member of GM's press-only Web site) and only a few examples, such as the one published, exist of samples from the 1996 launch campaign for the Catera, and the only source is the CateraOwners Web site. I think I met the criteria for the copyright owner (GM), fair use (promotional), and source (CateraOwners) to more than meet Fair Use. Or am I missing something? Tvccs 12:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:MitchelForman-1.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:MitchelForman-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Oden 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article and the image were released under GFDL by Mr. Forman at my request some months ago, as detailed and approved on the article's discussion page. I have now added further detail to the Image page as well. Tvccs 17:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting your comments. Tvccs 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Synar1.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Synar1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Oden 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance in resolving the copyright issue with this image. Tvccs 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Tune In Tomorrow 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tune In Tomorrow 1.jpg - resolved 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) . However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image source:

resolved Tvccs 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable:

resolved Tvccs 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned:

Missing fair use rationales:

resolved Tvccs 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
resolved Tvccs 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, --Oden 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a detailed fair use rationale

Follow this link for more instructions: Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. If you add a detailed fair use rationale the images which are missing them will most likely not be deleted. However, Wikipedia is not a repository for media, you have to specify in every image why that image is necessary. If you see other images missing a fair use rationale you can add the template {{subst:nrd}} and also notify the uploader.

As regards the orphaned images, images missing a source, replaceable images and the two copyright violations (where you uploaded copyrighted images under the GFDL) that is a separate issue. Cheers! --Oden 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the revised information at Image:SallyBarker1.jpg and provide commentary as needed. Thank you. Tvccs 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use disputed

FYI: The {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag is supposed to be used only when you dispute that the image is replaceable. If you concede that the image is replaceable, then even if you have other comments and don't wish the image to be deleted, do not use the tag. When you insert this tag, add your reason why you believe the image is irreplaceable on the image talk page. I have removed the tag from all {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} images where there is no dispute on the talk page, since the tag is only appropriate where there is an actual verbalized dispute. For some reason, the only person who has tagged images without listing an actual dispute is you -- everyone else who tagged images this way at least bothered to list a reason for the dispute on the talk page. Anyway, I'm just letting you know: I'm not singling you out, I'm treating all users the same way. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hello! I enjoyed working with you on the copyright/fair use issues. I noticed that your talk page is getting somewhat long, you can archive it (so you don't have to see all those old messages). There's more information at WP:ARCHIVE. I use a automated bot: Werdnabot. Contact me if you have any questions on archiving. Sincerely, --Oden 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take this for what it's worth

If you disagree with someone, there are way more effective ways than this to get them to reconsider. Friday (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in your discussions with Quadelle or whatever he is. It is futile to advance good sense arguments against these defilers of fair use images. "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." – Proverbs 12:15 Lou Sander 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell

I didn't mean that your contributions have been worthless. What I meant is simply that you should have some perspective; the hard part (actually taking the photos) was already done for you. You wasted some time uploading them. It's no different than the time wasted by the thousands of people who have had articles deleted at AfD, but they don't get to harass the nominators.

All I'm asking is that you remember that these are real people on the other end of the line. People love to use the anonymity of the Internet to say terribly rude things that they would never dream of saying to someone in real life; don't let the fact that we have keyboards between us make you meaner than you need to be. Quadell isn't out to ruin the encyclopedia any more than you or I were out to ruin it when we uploaded fair use photos, so give him a break. The battle will be lost or won on the policy pages, not on user pages. Kafziel Talk 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your comment - I have very specific and detailed knowledge of what happened in my instance and in what sequence, and in what order, by whom, and how I had every image I'd ever uploaded attacked after I challeged the interpretation of fair use now being used. That's reality, as well as everything else I've said. I think the present policy interpretation is idiotic, there are many dozens of people pissed off about it, and there are many actions of this admin that are being questioned on the revert pages, on which he generally takes the hardest line of anyone there. And as I say, pseudo-politeness, and that's what I consider it to be, is not a substiute for either the rationale or its implementation, especially in this instance when knowing all the facts, as I am all too aware. And speaking of "real people", your comments about simply sitting back and just adding other people's images as no big deal ignores the fact that in many cases I have spent much time getting these images from the artists personally, as well as the fact that I have just lost dozens and dozens of hours of work for nothing. You seem to regard that as meaningless, and too bad, I don't. And is the content Wikipedia any better for what's been done? Hell no. Yes, it's ruination, in my book, in the all-comsuming pseudo-quest for a totally free encyclopedia, when there are tens of thousands of fair use images that will never and cannot be replaced regardless, that make that "quest" moot from the outset. There is only one person that's been harassed here, and that's me. My "perspective" is quite in tune. Tvccs 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quadelle isn't "out to ruin the encyclopedia," but IMHO he's doing it. Tvcss is right. Lou Sander 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems to me that a lot of your efforts have paid off and you've been treated very fairly. If you show a reason why the image can't be adequately replaced, it won't be deleted. Nobody is singling you out. We're all getting the same messages. You've uploaded a large number of photos so you're getting a disproportionate number of warnings. I think the Fair Use situation could have been handled with a lot more tact and grace than it has been, but you've been around long enough to know that berating other users isn't going to get you anywhere.
Believe me - I don't believe in "pseudo-politeness" either. I don't go in for all that "thank you for editing Wikipedia" crap, but I don't run around antagonizing people either. Quadell agreed to answer to WP:AN; was it really necessary to say you didn't need him to agree? That was just argumentative and bitter. There's a middle ground between being obsequious and being obnoxious, and that's all I'm talking about here. You don't need to be his bitch, but he doesn't need to be your punching bag. Kafziel Talk 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not my punching bag...I simply alerted him as to what the effects of the realities of his actions were. I tried to respond as he requested, posted rationales galore and explanations like mad and and got nowhere. And if you look at the history, and I suggest you don't waste the time, you'd see that I got attacked for many dozens of images immediately after I posted comments on fair use at the Chowbok Rfc, which Quadell is a part of and general defender of, and is the only admin actively involved in that I can find. There are many other people with the exact same complaints, but unless you are willing to read a lot of pages and a lot of archives, most Wikiepdians would never get what's actually going on. This is reality. I'm just looking to find ways to get things done, or not done, that don't follow the same precedent as prior, which was a total waste of time. Tvccs 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to correct myself here - there is at least one other admin, who I just found was an admin, also sometimes involved at Chowbok. Tvccs 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make that two...Tvccs 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And where do you get the idea my efforts paid off? Maybe on completing FUR tags on non-living persons at a level of detail almost no one else has had to provide by the dozen, but in the case of Quadell, I kept three images and lost 29, so far. There are more that will likely get deleted as well. I wish I'd had an effect - see actual reality. Tvccs 16:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm 0 for 2. Percentage-wise, you're doing better than me. :)
But seriously, man, do your thing. I agree with most of your points on the subject of Fair Use itself, and I'd like to see you stick around to keep fighting the good fight rather than being blocked or banned for personal attacks. But I've said what I had to say about that stuff so there's no need to reiterate. Good luck with the photos and I hope I'll see you around. Kafziel Talk 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attack intended or stated whatsoever - I'm simply supplying my view of the reality of what's going on in this area and how it's being implemented from the perspective of a user who's lost dozens and dozens of images that are in fact nearly all non-replaceable. There is very little real understanding of what's actually going on, just many dozens of people extremely pissed off. I'm certainly one of those. As I stated at the outset, I see you've made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, keep up that good work. And of course you may, and have, offer your perspective, which I appreciate. I will not defend the actions of the admins and others in this case that are implementing wholesale attacks of users such as myself, regardless of the pseudo-politeness offered. Tvccs 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and add two more images to the delete list - I am now up to 31 images deleted versus three saved.Tvccs 12:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Derek Sherinian deleted

I just thought you would like to know. When you replace them, make sure that they are licenced as free to use, meaning that are not copyrightable. --RockyMM 12:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tvccs&oldid=93137629"